Archive for the 'Guns' Category

First is Max Velocity, who gives us another good entry on the presuppositions under-girding being able to operate in the field, which he titles More Detail On Rucking Fitness.  This is another valuable post from Max, and he gives us an example of what we should all aspire to achieve.  But I feel like I’m listening to my son (former Marine) describe humping 100+ pounds kit for twenty miles in 105 degree heat at Camp Lejeune.  At some point these guys have got to adjust their counsel for 53 year old guys with a slight belly, who walk five miles a day and get to the gym two or three times a week for weights.  Somewhat in shape, but not nearly the degree to which Max describes.

From Montrose, Texas we have another example of SWAT misbehavior.

“A man identified himself as the SWAT sergeant. He said I had exactly ten minutes to come downstairs or they were going to start tearing my house down,” Castorena said. “About a minute later, the SWAT team runs through my front yard and batter rams my front door.”

Castorena was led out in handcuffs and charged with felony assault.

The whole thing started over loud music.  No, seriously.  Loud music.

David Codrea’s articles are always worth reading, but one in particular bears reading again regarding judge Kidd making the injunction against the Mississippi open carry law permanent.  We’ve discussed this before, and I just can’t help but believe that turning to judge Kidd at all in any form whatsoever is illegitimate, even attempting to get him to overturn his ban.  The man did something unconstitutional, as he has no right to ban laws because he thinks they are unclear.  Judge Kidd is a candidate for impeachment, and if I were the governor and attorney general I would go ahead with the law and call a special session of Congress to throw Kidd out.

Next, read Kurt Hofmann on gun control pushers hoping to exploit the Zimmerman case for more oppressive laws.  Of course they do.  Has a statist ever done anything or taken any action to decrease the power of the state?  Can a leopard change its spots?

Always drop by Western Rifle Shooters Association every day, and I appreciate WRSA for bloggrolling me.  I consider this an achievement.

“The AR-15 muzzle flash is the new torch of liberty” according to Representative Steve Stockman, R- Texas.  Just so.  Related, one commenter at reddit/guns has a post on AR-15s that might interest you, some of it good, some of it so-so, but be warned.  If you carry on that discussion here, we don’t use Eugene Stoner’s name in any other context but effusive praise or hushed reverence.

Finally, Bob Owens has a rifle suggestion for Zimmerman now that he’s a free man.  Not all that dissimilar from mine (excluding the EOTech).  I have my tactical light on an offset mount because I don’t want it under the weapon and in front of the forend grip.

I hold my weapon the way my son taught me to, using the forend grip only as an anchor point rather than grasping it, and thus my hand uses much of the forend of the weapon.  This is also similar to the way Travis Haley teaches, not coincidentally, and the more exaggerated version of this is in vogue with SF where the arm is outstretched straight and gripping the forend of the weapon on the side completely without a grip in order to avoid over-rotation of the weapon during target acquisition (this technique comes from the gamers).

UPDATE: David Codrea has some thoughts on hauling rucks.  When you look at it that way, I guess I’ll bring up the rear with David and die in a firefight while laying down cover fire for the rest of you.  So be it.  There are worse ways to go.

The Frisky:

Sure, it’s a stretch to connect children who play with water guns or even play with video games to the seriously mentally disturbed people who go shoot up classrooms and buses and hair salons. I can’t help but wonder, though, if we’ve become a little more desensitized to those real life shootings because we like how fun playing with guns can be. It’s fun if you’re a grown man with his buddies, sitting in a tree, patiently lying in wait to shoot a deer. It’s fun if you’re a kid running through a backyard shooting water at your aunt.

But maybe it shouldn’t be.

Let’s deal with this as a serious objection to guns, because for too many people it is.  First of all, hunting is a well respected and serious sport, and an activity that has kept many a family fed for many years.  Furthermore, the deer population of Missouri, for example, is higher now than in colonial America because of modern game management practices, and culling the population from hunting is part of that.

As for the shooting sports, see Jerry Miculek shoot a 40-round magazine and tell me he isn’t enjoying himself.  This is a man who spends much of his life at the range and participates in (and wins) competitive shooting competitions.

Next, the population of feral hogs is increasing and even lethal removal isn’t enough to control the damage to the land.  Shooting them with weapons is environmentally friendly.

Moving to war (which seems to occupy much of the author’s attention), war is certainly a horrible thing, but that doesn’t mean that having to fight them is evil.  On the contrary, there are good wars, and if your world view cannot see the good in defense of your country, then you should revisit your world view.  You have deeper problems than with guns.

From wars fought against aggressors to prevention of tyranny, you should consider the lives saved by the availability of firearms.  Finally, if you are unwilling to look upon guns this way, you had better hope that your children can safely operate them for when that rapist or home invader violates your space.

Your children are doing just fine playing with water guns.  As for me, I have said before that my own grandson, just two years old, gets wide-eyed and excited when Papa brings his guns out.  But he knows that he can only touch them when Papa is with him.  I look forward to shooting his first 10/22 with him, and I won’t be suffering from any silly moral dilemmas on that day.

NR:

Ilion has a spa; a shoe shop; a trio of pizza joints (Franco’s, Sorrento, and Lombardo’s); a McDonald’s; a bowling alley; and a few more of exactly the sorts of places that you’d imagine you’d find in towns of its size. Pretty much all of the businesses rely on Remington for their livelihood. “That little shoe shop, for example,” Kollitides says, pointing, “makes all of our safety shoes.”

And so Remington tends to get its way in matters civic. “They moved the town so we could expand,” I’m told by plant manager Paul Merz. “See that factory building there? That used to be the center of town.” Later, I’m shown photographs of houses literally being picked up and transported down the street to make way for the plant.

They moved the Erie Canal, too. In 1827, the company, seeking access to the new waterway and to the expanding domestic market, switched from its original location in the Remington family forge at Ilion Gulch to a new position closer to the canal. Business boomed. Eighty-eight years later, the tables were turned: To facilitate the company’s growth, the town altered the canal’s path. “Ilion has molded itself to Remington,” Kollitides smiles.

[ … ]

I ask the predictable question: Despite the plant’s history and the cohesion of the town, do New York State’s business environment and sweeping new anti-gun legislation tempt the company to move? Some disgruntled gun enthusiasts believe that manufacturers should leave states that are hostile to their interests. Remington produces many weapons that are now illegal in New York State.

In answer, I am referred to a statement that was released immediately after Governor Cuomo signed the disastrous SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act in January. It reads: “Remington will not run or abandon its loyal and hard working 1,300 employees without considerable thought and deliberation. Laws can be overturned and politicians voted out of office, but the decisions we make today will affect our people, their families and entire communities for generations.”

Charles C. W. Cooke got taken to the cleaners in this article.  He rolled over and failed to address the hard issues or press the hard questions.  He soft-pedaled one of the best questions, and was satisfied to be referred to a press release.

Every union shop knows that the company needs to operate.  That’s a horrible answer, and it doesn’t change the fact that union shops destroy companies.  Remington has recently announced expansion in North Carolina, not by any stretch a union shop state.

The labor pool will be just as good and cheaper than a union shop.  And Remington no more believes that New York is reconcilable with constitutional rights than you and I do.  Their press release kicks the can down the road and fails to deal with hard issues.   The notion that gun control can be reversed in New York is a fiction.  The answer is to move and leave New York to the consequences of its actions and decisions.

Their union shop knows the company needs to operate.  But it doesn’t, not really.  The bottom line will decide whether Remington can stay in Ilion.  As for me, I have begun to look for alternatives to that nice Remington 700 series rifle I wanted.  Too bad.  If they relocate their entire operation to the South, I might reconsider.

David Codrea:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC’s ban on the sale and possession of handguns,” the Violence Policy Center crowed back in 2004, before the historic Heller decision. “Judge Walton’s 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

“In his opinion, Judge Walton … wrote: ‘[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,’” the VPC release continued.

David has a discussion of the secret authority wielded by judge Walton that’s well worth the time.  Another from Kurt Hofmann.

The problem with that argument is that the distinction between soldiers and “peace officers” (don’t hear that term much anymore, do you?) is rapidly disappearing. Can anyone look at the massive abuses perpetrated by “peace officers” in Boston in pursuit of the surviving alleged Marathon bomber, and dispute that “law enforcement” is becoming an occupying army?

To the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that’s just fine, with executive director Josh Horwitz cautioning us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” because “they have a tough job.”

Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called “assault weapons” (although in that context, they might call them “patrol rifles,” or “personal defense weapons“), which we are told are “weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets,” and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?

Read Kurt’s setup for the situation and the argument for the following comments to make any sense.

Kurt is commenting on what we discussed in And Now They Trample The Third Amendment (which WRSA picked up and linked).  Kurt makes an interesting point of logic.  If the gun controllers and collectivists argue that AR-15s are weapons of war, then they cannot rationally and consistently object to the application of the third amendment to law enforcement – that is, for collectivists who want at least the pretext of being consistent and rational.

Bob Owens has a wonderful takedown of the argument that the founders didn’t imagine weapons of war in the hands of civilians, entitled  ‘ … but the founders couldn’t have imagined more than muskets.” (I had asked Bob to give me the URL for this article several weeks ago and he couldn’t produce it, which means that I know more about what Bob is writing than he does, or something like that).

Bob’s piece is masterful and necessary reading.  Using Kurt’s syllogism and Bob’s article, it means that there is no distinction (which also means that the Hughes amendment is obscene), and both that the police are guilty of a constitutional violation and we should have access to these “weapons of war” since the founders envisioned that we would.

Turning back to David, I don’t really find it surprising that this collectivist judge doesn’t believe in the second amendment, even though it is troubling.  What I find most interesting is how he expressed his demurral: ” … the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.”

Dear readers, listen to me carefully and pay close attention.  Might does not make right.  If it did the Nazis were justified in killing Jews.  The fact that you have guns and are willing to perish to keep them (like me) doesn’t mean that it’s your right to own them.  Furthermore, the government – voters, rulers, policy, pieces of paper including even the constitution – does not confer rights.  The government is not in a position of justifiably conferring anything on you.

Listen again, dear reader.  If you believe that the constitution confers the right to own a gun, you will always be subject to the vicissitudes of constitutional interpretation and the latest hermeneutic fashions.

I rarely press my religious beliefs, but there is a time and occasion for it.  This is one of those times.  Your rights are conferred by your creator, and that’s why they are unalienable.  The constitution merely recognizes and acknowledges those rights.

You have rights to your “weapons of war,” and so do I.  And the police have no right to invade your castle.  And we have a right to demand better of those who would adjudicate our laws than we have in judge Walton.

Read David and Kurt at Examiner.

John Richardson (via David Codrea).

Judge Winston Kidd extended his Temporary Restraining Order against HB 2 until Friday according to “Jackson Jambalaya” who attended the proceedings this afternoon. The state argues that HB 2 only clarified the definition of concealed and that open carry is allowed under the MS Constitution of 1891.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Rankin) who authored HB 2 released this statement earlier today before the beginning of the hearing.

“The Amended Complaint filed with the Hinds County Circuit Court on July 1, 2013 alleges that House Bill 2 (which defined the term “concealed”) is unconstitutional on three grounds:

1) “Unconstitutionally vague” …

2) “Overbroad” …

3) “Arbitrary and Capricious.” This is where it gets most interesting. The complaint alleges that the definition “is arbitrary and capricious in excusing persons who wish to openly-carry firearms from the license requirements imposed on persons who wish to carry concealed firearms.” TRANSLATION: HINDS COUNTY OFFICIALS WANT TO REQUIRE GUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF ALL GUNS BEING CARRIED BY MISSISSIPPIANS. THIS IS THE SAME LINE OF THINKING BEING PUSHED IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND NEW YORK CITY, RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD.”

Vagueness has no bearing whatsoever on the latitude given to a judge, or in other words, this isn’t a good justification for barring a law, and the judge has no right under the rubric of “vagueness” to do such a thing.

Same with “overbroad.”  But it is indeed most interesting that arbitrary and capricious is included, and it makes the case for judge Kidd doing what he did laughable.  Many laws are arbitrary and capricious – the legal drinking age, speed limits, most traffic laws, zoning regulations, etc.  My point isn’t that we should change the legal drinking age or amend the speed limit to 100 MPH.

The point is that if judge Kidd were going to use arbitrary and capricious as a justification for throwing a law out (rather than the more classic reason that a law does not comport with the constitution), he’s got a lot of work to do and most laws would disappear from the books.

No, judge Kidd has another agenda, and it is this agenda that does not comport with the constitution.

Prior:

Mississippi Supreme Court Denies Petition To Undo Open Carry Block

Mississippi Judge Blocks Open Carry Law

There is an interesting discussion thread at reddit/guns on whether you open carry when you hike.  There is some good information, some bad.  Take it all with a grain of salt.

We have discussed open carry before, and how laws against open carry are an artifact of Jim Crow laws.  They should all be repealed, each and every one of them.  Furthermore, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense for a discussion of the ubiquity of weapons and their open carry in Colonial America.

But regarding the open carry of weapons when you hike or camp, you should do it.  There are threats in the East, from Coyotes (which can be aggressive), to Black Bear, to snakes and other threats.  In the West the problem becomes even more severe, with Brown Bear, Cougar (Mountain Lion, Panther or various other names), and even Jaguar in the Southwest.  And of course, there is the omnipresent threat of evil humans with which to contend.

The discussion thread gives some examples of threats (and also see here), and I have given an example of a man who saved his life by carrying a .45 pistol while camping.  Whether legal in any specific state or not, open carry is wise in the wilds since need for the weapon is likely to be an immediate and urgent need.

However unsafe you are in urban America, you are even less safe when you go into the wilds.  Carry weapons.  Have them at your rapid disposal.  Know how to use them.  Don’t be a victim.

David Codrea:

A three-judge panel of the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled yesterday against the state attorney general’s petition to undo an injunction blocking a firearms open carry law from going into effect.

“After due consideration, we find that the State’s Combined Petition should be denied for procedural reasons,” the order signed by Justice James W. Kitchens declared. “In denying the Petition, the panel expresses no opinion respecting the merits of the matters pending before the circuit court.”

We had previously discussed the new Mississippi open carry law and how an activist judge blocked implementation of the law for what appears to be illegitimate reasons.

With this move, the supreme court has weighed in by not weighing in.  In other words, there is no one left in the judiciary who will stop judicial activism in Mississippi.

The proper way to deal with this kind of judicial activism is to implement the constitutional law anyway and impeach the judge in an emergency meeting of the Mississippi Senate.  It’s called balance of power, and at least in part, America is built upon this precept.

Read it at Examiner.

Just a brief note on a pet peeve of mine.  I had the distinctly obnoxious displeasure of watching a man named Bo Dietl on Fox News last night discussing the George Zimmerman case.  I haven’t weighed in on this case, and probably won’t until it’s finished and I comment on what a huge waste of time and resources this whole thing was.  Circus, it is.

But on point, Mr. Dietl is apparently a former NYPD Police Department employee who now comments on television.  He was discussing guns just “going off.”  The context had to do with whether a round was in the chamber in Mr. Zimmerman’s gun, and while a round being chambered makes the gun ready to use, it also makes it liable to just “go off.”

It’s really annoying when people talk this way.  Of course, a gun does nothing of the sort.  Guns don’t “go off,” regardless of the fact that one can find an article about every day about guns “going off” and harming or killing someone.

Whether you like or dislike the “beaver tail safety” on my XDm .45 semi-auto, or any other model that has a grip safety, and whether you like or dislike the two-stage triggers that come on the XDm and S&W M&P (i.e., brush guard), the fact is that a pistol requires user interaction in order to discharge a round (excluding something like “baking off” a round because of heavy combat and high weapon temperatures, something most Americans won’t experience).

And even if a weapon doesn’t have those features, your trigger finger is your safety.  Without it, the weapon doesn’t fire.  It’s fear mongering affecting unengaged and uneducated people to say that a weapon “goes off” if you have a round in the chamber.  People who know firearms know better.

I guess Bo Dietl doesn’t know firearms.  What a putz.  Maybe he should become educated before commenting on television.  It’s the least he could do.

We’ve previously discussed the Mississippi open carry law, and how LEOs in particular don’t approve of the new law.  And yet, it is still new law, and the LEOs must honor the rights of citizens.  When progressives said Mississippi would turn into the Wild, Wild West, I demurred and pointed out that my own home state of North Carolina was a traditional open carry state.  Everything would turn out fine, I admonished.  But rather than accept the new law, progressives found themselves an activist judge who would side with them.

A Hinds County circuit court judge, initially appointed to the bench by a Democrat governor, granted the wishes of a Democrat prosecutor on Friday in an “emergency hearing” to halt implementation of a gun bill opposed by Democrat lawmakers, the Associated Press reported . Judge Winston Kidd issued a temporary injunction after Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith requested that he block a new law from going into effect.

[ … ]

“For the purposes of this section, ‘concealed’ … shall not include … a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible,” the bill states, essentially clarifying that open carrying of firearms by non-prohibited persons in non-prohibited locations is lawful activity.

In an unabashed feat of judicial and linguistic contortion, Kidd ruled that specific language is “vague,” and justified his injunction on the grounds that allowing the bill to take effect would cause “irreparable harm.”

“We’re looking at a Wild West scenario,” Jody Owens, Managing Attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center charged … repeating the meme again.  The judge should now be seen as a lawbreaker himself, because there is nothing in the Mississippi constitution that allows a judge to override the legislature and Governor just because he doesn’t read as clearly as we do.

The judge should be impeached, and as for the claim that Mississippi would turn into the Wild, Wild West, I think that the fear is exactly the opposite.  I think that everyone knows that nothing untoward will occur, and thus Mississippi will become an example to the rest of the states (e.g., Texas, South Carolina, etc.) that have not been traditional open carry states but choose to change that.

As for the LEOs, it’s difficult to change, even when facing the inevitable.  Thus we have scenes like this.

Biloxi Police Chief John Miller holds up a sign he has made to help business owners who wish to keep people from entering their establishments while carrying guns.

But it isn’t within their charge to ensure that weapons aren’t carried in and through Mississippi, concealed or openly.  LEOs and politics don’t mix, and police chiefs can be replaced.

In the end, this stolid judge’s day in the sun will soon go away, guns will be openly carried in Mississippi, the Wild, Wild West will not obtain, and LEOs like Chief John Miller will be ridiculed for their fear mongering.

And everything will be made right.

NBC:

The U.S. Park Police, the law enforcement agency responsible for safeguarding the National Mall and critical American landmarks, has lost track of a large supply of handguns, rifles and shotguns, according to a harshly critical report issued Thursday.

In the report, the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Interior faults staff at the agency for having no idea how many weapons they control and says the department has no clear policies or procedures for investigating missing weapons. The office says top managers, including the police chief, have shown a “lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management.”

While surveying Park Police field office armories, investigators found more than 1,400 extra and unassigned weapons that were intended to be destroyed. They also found 198 handguns that were transferred from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and stored in an operations facility firearms room without being recorded in an inventory system.

There are also instances of officers storing service weapons at their homes, according to the report.

“We found credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms, and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing,” deputy inspector general Mary Kendall wrote to Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service, in a letter that accompanies the report.

I’ve said before that I could be blindfolded and allowed to start at my door, and I could walk to every one of my guns in the house, put my hands on each of them, and tell you whether a round is chambered before I ever get there.  If you cannot do that, then you shouldn’t have guns.  It’s sort of like knowing where your medications are, whether the stove is on, or whether your doors are locked.

The only gun control I support is knowing everything about your guns, including how many you have.  This is the most basic of all responsibilities, and if the federal government cannot do this then they should be treated like children and shouldn’t have any guns.  In fact, given their history and tendency towards totalitarianism, maybe they shouldn’t have guns anyway.